Wouldn't it be wonderful if Parliamentary and Senate votes were all conscience votes?  The RU486 bill got off to an inspiring and (politically) very clever start simply in the way it was introduced - a private member's bill introduced by representatives from the Australian Democrats, Labor, Liberal and National parties, disregarding established party lines in order to introduce something its proponents believed needed to be debated.

Following the debate that followed in the Senate and the one that's currently underway in the House of Representatives has also been a suprisingly uplifting experience. Less surprisingly, it's the Coalition MPs and Senators who are really shining with the freedom to speak from their heart rather than from the party line. The Democrats, Greens and Independants have always enjoyed that freedom, and Labor can barely manage to pull in the same direction even on things that aren't controversial. This doesn't make any of their contributions any less valid or vital (particularly the Democrats, who started the ball rolling to begin with), but none of these groups have suffered from the same perception of being a monolithic bloc of votes with little capacity for independance of thought.

In the House of Reps yesterday, Peter Costello delivered what must surely be the most honest and sincere speech he's ever given in his time in government. It appears so have surprised even some of his colleagues ("Not eye to eye", The Australian) and has even prompted the media to interpret it as a bid to boost his leadership aspirations. This once, though, I'm choosing not to be so overtly cynical about Costello's motives.

Amanda Vanstone has been the real surprise, though. During the Senate debate last week ("Women's victory on issue of choice", The Australian):

First, the Immigration Minister took aim at the fellows: "One of the men said ... he doesn't want abortion to be any easier and a pill would necessarily be easier. Well, hello. Clearly he has never had the mindset of it ever happening to him. It is not going to happen to him because he is a boy."

Then, at the anti-abortion lobby: "I would like the pro-life people to get another name because, frankly, that describes everybody in this place. I do not know anybody who is against life."

And, finally, the churches: "If you can come to a view that there can be a just war, why can there never be a just abortion? I cannot see it ... No god that I have ever read or heard about needs this place to do his or her work."

I've never had any confidence in Vanstone's abilities as a Minister, or any faith that she should be allowed a role where she has direct influence over the lives of human beings.  But now, seeing her coming out so unequivocally about something where she's been freed from party restraints, I find there's a hint of doubt as to whether it's fair to lay the systemic failures and abuses in Immigration solely at her feet. She clearly has a capacity for ethical thought and reasoned arguments, and maybe she's not irredemable after all... And if she's not, then maybe there are more in the Coalition parties who also have a lot more to offer Australian politics if they can free themselves from the party game.

It makes you wonder what could be achieved if Australa's politicians were free to speak and vote as they chose. Of course they all have that choice in principle, but the major parties always wield the implicit threat of withdrawing support or actively undermining an individual's career (although that never seems to apply to MPs or Senators who simply blurt out the first inflammatory or stupid thing that comes to mind). The result might be an abominable mess that yields a government incapable of reaching any meaningful decision ... but I don't think so.

What we've seen in the last week leads me to think that we'd see, overall, a relatively mature, reasoned and ultimately informed debate about issues, and a greater likelihood that elected representatives would think about what they were doing when casting a vote instead of doing what the Whip tells them. Perhaps even more importantly, the Australian electorate would also be better informed about the decision-making process and the role their elected representatives played in it, leading to a genuine degree of parliamentary accountability to the electorate. What we're seeing now are a number of MPs and Senators who might otherwise have remained silent standing up and saying what they personally believe. Some of it is impossible to agree with, but even when a neanderthal like Joyce gets to his feet and rants, it's an opportunity to see them exposed as they really are.

There are a lot of reasons why this might not work, but my feeling is that most of them come down to inertia and a fear of change. Ask yourself this: in a system of government where every representative is free to vote according to their conscience (and, really, aren't they supposed to do that, anyway, or do Australian voters deliberately set out to elect someone who'll vote for things they find unconscionable?), what do any of us really stand to lose? At the end of the day, the only true losers I can see are the party machines - and is that really such a loss?